Speaking of social security

[Son Goku]

Well it was brought up in another thread. Suggestion for raising the retirement age... 67? Forget it...they're talking about 69 years old...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050615/ap_on_go_co/social_security

WASHINGTON - Key Senate Republicans are considering gradually raising the Social Security retirement age as high as 69 over several years as they struggle to jump-start legislation that President Bush has placed atop his second-term agenda, officials said Tuesday.

Under current law, the retirement age for full Social Security benefits is 65 1/2 and is scheduled to reach 67 for those born in 1960 or later.

The possible increase to 69 over two decades or more was among the suggestions that Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, presented to fellow Republicans on the panel last week as part of an attempt to give the program greater financial solvency, the officials said.

Grassley also suggested steps to hold down benefits for upper-wage earners of the future, these officials have said previously. They spoke only on condition of anonymity, saying the discussions were confidential.

The disclosures surfaced as Bush campaigned in Pennsylvania for changes in Social Security, including creation of voluntary personal accounts for younger workers — a step that would be accompanied by a reduction in the promised government benefit.

Speaking to a convention of the Pennsylvania FFA — formerly known as the Future Farmers of America — Bush said he wants to "make sure the system is a better deal for younger workers" and assured older people in the audience that they would continue to get their promised benefits.

The students would get the same benefits that seniors today receive, Bush said, without mentioning that his plans involve a reduction in the benefits younger Americans have been promised in their own retirement.

In a fresh illustration of the political stakes surrounding the issue, Democrats charged that rural Americans would be hit hardest by Bush's plans, which they consistently describe as privatization...

I know this has been discussed before (well a suggested 69 retirement age wasn't mentioned then). The more I read, the less optomistic I am that I would really ever see whatever money I would be required to pay into the system under law...

And speaking of which, I'm 33 now... I'm wondering what sort of retirement age they'll be talking about another 35 years down the road ;)

[CybrSage]

Yeah, it is kinda sad that the only solution the Dems seem to agree with is the "raise the age until people are dead before they can collect" solution.

Chile has privatized accounts, and has for a few decades, and it works VERY well. But hey, since Bush is proposing it, the Dems MUST say it is bad...the collective hive mind says so.

[Riptide]

69? Are they joking?

[CybrSage]

69? Are they joking?


"Oh yeah, well, if you are us, then tell me what number we are thinking of..."

[oldsk00l]

social security is the great leech of our society, it should be abolished and done away with, not just the program but the entire concept is just all wrong and I'm against it.

[Son Goku]

Well the concept itself I don't find so bad, but the general mis-management the social security fund has received over the last 30 years :thumbsdown: 69 though, yeah I'm suspecting they're seriously considering this one.

Problem, the way things are headed would people even be in a condition to enjoy they're retirement? Last I heard (though this might have increased some), the average life expectancy for a man was about 72 years. This is inching pretty close to that, and could likely increase again... After a lifetime of hard work, I do think a few years on this planet where one can reap the fruits of their own labor is reasonable...

The way it's looking however, people could well end up working till the day they die, have their money pulled (through the social security tax) of which their money will never find it's way back to them, and either be dead, or perhaps too old to be able to enjoy what little time they have left. In the case of my mother's family however, they have tended to be long lived (my grandmother died at 97 for instance). Only problem is, sometime in the 70s, dementia started to set in :(

[oldsk00l]

I see social security as being screwed in the ass until you're about to die, at which point you only get a fraction back of what they screwed you in the ass for.

It's all just a bunch of ass-screwing for the sake of self-existance for a system whose purpose was convoluted from the beginning by a bleeding heart concept that was fubar from the start.

[Riptide]

Just let the free market take over. I don't understand why we must have that government safety blanket. I'd have no problem with them letting me roll all the funds I have over to a 401K and then let it be.

[oldsk00l]

I'd be willing to give up all but 1/20th of what I've contributed just to get rid of it.

Hell

I'd be willing to give up every damn dime I've contributed just to get rid of it.

I just hate having to PAY for the shortsightedness of most individuals.

[Riptide]

I want my money back. No way am I going to willingly let them run off with 19/20th's of my funds. But I understand where you're coming from, as far as the frustration goes.

[DaveW]

Hey Beavis, 69... uhhuhuhuh..

yeah... heh heh ehehe...

[Sazar]

Yeah, it is kinda sad that the only solution the Dems seem to agree with is the "raise the age until people are dead before they can collect" solution.

Chile has privatized accounts, and has for a few decades, and it works VERY well. But hey, since Bush is proposing it, the Dems MUST say it is bad...the collective hive mind says so.

The issue is not about privatized accounts being bad.

The issue is that even with privatized accounts, it is only going to delay the inevitable collapse of the system, not fix it. Bush himself has said this as well as the people who have penned the plan if you want to consider googling it.

Neither side has a proper solution and this age increase proposal is a lot like the privatization idea, except a heck of a lot cheaper to implement.

What possible good is a plan that costs several hundred billion dollars of tax payer money if it is only going to delay the inevitable a few years? There is no sound logic to support this.

There are some good ideas undoubtedly, this has never been in question. But it doesn't FIX anything.

[Son Goku]

The issue is not about privatized accounts being bad.

The issue is that even with privatized accounts, it is only going to delay the inevitable collapse of the system, not fix it. Bush himself has said this as well as the people who have penned the plan if you want to consider googling it.

Neither side has a proper solution and this age increase proposal is a lot like the privatization idea, except a heck of a lot cheaper to implement.

What possible good is a plan that costs several hundred billion dollars of tax payer money if it is only going to delay the inevitable a few years? There is no sound logic to support this.

There are some good ideas undoubtedly, this has never been in question. But it doesn't FIX anything.

See, if there was time for a proper solution, it might have well been 30 years ago. It would have included:

- Congress may not, under any circumstances dip into the Social Security general fund, to devert it's funds to other purposes. The account shall not be filled with IOUs.

- When all the baby boomers were working, and all that extra money was being poured into the system, rather then divert it, invest the people's money so it grows compounded interest and a certain return all these decades while these people were still working.

I don't like the idea at all, but I think my generation (and yours as well) is going to get stuck with the short end of the stick when it comes to paying the price for these people's mismanagement for so long. But in the words of so many politicians "not my problem" as they figure they'll be out of office (and hence beyond the possibility of political repricusions) when the consequences come bare upon us all :(

Course with the way the retirement age inches up, without a commencerate increase in people's life expectency; I think it is fair to call a spade a spade here. We might be looking at a situation in which "retirement" might well become an idea of the past...

[oldsk00l]

The issue is not about privatized accounts being bad.

The issue is that even with privatized accounts, it is only going to delay the inevitable collapse of the system, not fix it. Bush himself has said this as well as the people who have penned the plan if you want to consider googling it.

Neither side has a proper solution and this age increase proposal is a lot like the privatization idea, except a heck of a lot cheaper to implement.

What possible good is a plan that costs several hundred billion dollars of tax payer money if it is only going to delay the inevitable a few years? There is no sound logic to support this.

There are some good ideas undoubtedly, this has never been in question. But it doesn't FIX anything.

I couldn't agree more that what we have is un-fixable. The concept is pretty noble, I just hate getting reamed up my ass for it. If we could ever adopt to a "what you put in is what you get" system I'd be more for it....oh wait that's what employers do
:rolleyes:

[evilchris]

The only real fix is to forbid people having 10 kids. Keep the population under control and we'll have a good ratio of workers/retirees

[oldsk00l]

The only real fix is to forbid people having 10 kids. Keep the poplation under control and we'll have a good ratio of workers/retirees

Monty Python's Meaning of Life comes to mind :D

:afro2:

[Son Goku]

If we could ever adopt to a "what you put in is what you get" system I'd be more for it....oh wait that's what employers do
:rolleyes:

Well an employer would have the sense to actually invest the money so that it's making interest before it's drawn upon. This would allow for cost of living/inflation adjustments... What an employer would not do is squander the money it has on hand in it's various accounts, unless it doesn't want to remain in business long.

Unlike the gov; in business, fiscal irresponsibility has consequences for the company itself. Further, if the corporate managers were fiscally irresponsible, there'd be a "higher power" known as the Board of Directors that would start asking the tough questions :D

Oh, and on having kids, it wouldn't be such a problem if the money they payed into the system (when they started working) remained there. The problem, it seems one can't trust a politician when it comes to matters of money ;)

[oldsk00l]

Well an employer would have the sense to actually invest the money so that it's making interest before it's drawn upon. This would allow for cost of living/inflation adjustments... What an employer would not do is squander the money it has on hand in it's various accounts, unless it doesn't want to remain in business long.

Unlike the gov; in business, fiscal irresponsibility has consequences for the company itself. Further, if the corporate managers were fiscally irresponsible, there'd be a "higher power" known as the Board of Directors that would start asking the tough questions :D

Oh, and on having kids, it wouldn't be such a problem if the money they payed into the system (when they started working) remained there. The problem, it seems one can't trust a politician when it comes to matters of money ;)

Which just reflects on the whole business of the private sector typically doing anything 10x better than the government can.

The ONLY purpose a federal government should be charged with is defense. No Medicare, no Medicaid, no bleeding heart bull-****. For that matter, if we need any "gubment" crap it should be left at a state level. For example indigent care programs for healthcare - those are the ONLY "government" healthcare involvements I've ever seen work and we're collectively doing the opposite of that.

[Sazar]

The only real fix is to forbid people having 10 kids. Keep the population under control and we'll have a good ratio of workers/retirees

Yah no kidding.